국내 최대 기계 및 로봇 연구정보

기술보고서

기술보고서 게시판 내용
타이틀	Reynolds-Averaged Turbulence Model Assessment for a Highly Back-Pressured Isolator Flowfield
저자	Baurle, Robert A.;; Middleton, Troy F.;; Wilson, L. G.
Keyword	COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS;; COMPUTATIONAL GRIDS;; FLOW DISTRIBUTION;; GROUND TESTS;; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;; PROPULSION;; REYNOLDS AVERAGING;; REYNOLDS STRESS;; SEPARATED FLOW;; SUPERSONIC COMBUSTION RAMJET ENGINES;; TURBULENCE MODELS
URL	http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20130000726
보고서번호	NF1676L-15654
발행년도	2012
출처	NTRS (NASA Technical Report Server)
ABSTRACT	The use of computational fluid dynamics in scramjet engine component development is widespread in the existing literature. Unfortunately, the quantification of model-form uncertainties is rarely addressed with anything other than sensitivity studies, requiring that the computational results be intimately tied to and calibrated against existing test data. This practice must be replaced with a formal uncertainty quantification process for computational fluid dynamics to play an expanded role in the system design, development, and flight certification process. Due to ground test facility limitations, this expanded role is believed to be a requirement by some in the test and evaluation community if scramjet engines are to be given serious consideration as a viable propulsion device. An effort has been initiated at the NASA Langley Research Center to validate several turbulence closure models used for Reynolds-averaged simulations of scramjet isolator flows. The turbulence models considered were the Menter BSL, Menter SST, Wilcox 1998, Wilcox 2006, and the Gatski-Speziale explicit algebraic Reynolds stress models. The simulations were carried out using the VULCAN computational fluid dynamics package developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. A procedure to quantify the numerical errors was developed to account for discretization errors in the validation process. This procedure utilized the grid convergence index defined by Roache as a bounding estimate for the numerical error. The validation data was collected from a mechanically back-pressured constant area Ƒ 2 inch) isolator model with an isolator entrance Mach number of 2.5. As expected, the model-form uncertainty was substantial for the shock-dominated, massively separated flowfield within the isolator as evidenced by a 6 duct height variation in shock train length depending on the turbulence model employed. Generally speaking, the turbulence models that did not include an explicit stress limiter more closely matched the measured surface pressures. This observation is somewhat surprising, given that stress-limiting models have generally been developed to better predict shock-separated flows. All of the models considered also failed to properly predict the shape and extent of the separated flow region caused by the shock boundary layer interactions. However, the best performing models were able to predict the isolator shock train length (an important metric for isolator operability margin) to within 1 isolator duct height.